       TRAVELLER Digest 43

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Copyrights & stuff by Jonathan Sari <surge@dilbert.cqs.washington.edu>
  2) Re: Starports by jdietz@cs.ucsd.edu (Jack Dietz)
  3) Non-violent Players by Rob_Prior@nynet.nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
  4) Re: Non-violent Players by Jeff Scott Franzmann <umfranzm@CC.UManitoba.CA>
  5) Re: Non-violent Players by PPUGLIESE@pimacc.pima.edu
  6) plasma/fusion guns by Edward_Swatschek@mindlink.bc.ca (Edward Swatschek)
  7) TNE Space Combat by k.combs@genie.geis.com
  8) My Comrades        Dear Comrades In Crime... by 556N@delphi.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 18:09:00 -0700
From: Jonathan Sari <surge@dilbert.cqs.washington.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Copyrights & stuff
Message-ID: <199409170109.SAA24315@dilbert.cqs.washington.edu>

Data cannot be copyrighted.  Let me repeat that.  DATA can *NOT* be
copyrighted.  Game mechanics can *NOT* be copyrighted.  Ideas can
*NOT* be copyrighted.  A copyright protects the form of the data only,
that is: what *SPECIFIC* wording you use to describe something, what
format you use to lay out your tables, or which drawing you use to show
it.  

A list of stars and planets can NOT be copyrighted.  Copying a list of
stars and planets with full descriptions of the conditions on those
planets is not a violation of copyright law, as long as the descriptions
are paraphrased.  By the same token, cities, NPC concepts, game ideas,
settings, etc. can NOT be copyrighted.

Of course, just because you are legally in the right in all ways does
not mean that you won't be sued, and defending a frivolous lawsuit will
probably cost you $10,000.  Look at Palladium Books and TSR as examples
of that point.

-Jon

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 18:18:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: jdietz@cs.ucsd.edu (Jack Dietz)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Starports
Message-ID: <9409170118.AA29031@beowulf>

Jeff Zeitlin writes, 
> I'd written...
> 
> T::>  1) An airport has a landing area (the runways) and a service
>  ::>  area (hangars/terminals).  A seaport combines the two (into the
>  ::>  dock).  Which model should I follow with a starport?
> 
>  Rob Miracle replied...
> 
> T::>The Airport model is acutally a little better.  But a lot depends on
>  ::>the planet.  For instance, one world (from a published GDW product,
>  ::>though which one slips my mind) with a 'C' atmosphere, brought the
>  ::>ships inside the planet.  Some star ports will have big open areas
>  ::>that the ships reside in, others will have docking bays.  In Asmov's
>  ::>Foundation series, the Starport at Trantor was of a docking bay config.
>  ::>The ships were in the star port, and the people on Trantor never left
>  ::>the concreate and steel of the capital.
> 
>  Yes, I see your point.  But, broadly speaking, we still have the 
>  "airport" class and the "seaport" class.  In the case of the C 
>  atmo world above, once the ships are brought into the planet, are 
>  they moved from the "elevators" (airport model) or do the 
>  terminals and maintenance facilities get linked to them right 
>  there (seaport model)?  Similar questions with respect to Asimov's 
>  Trantor.  If you have the old "Star Fleet Technical Manual" (the 
>  one that corresponded to the original series), you'd see that SFHQ 
>  was essentially a seaport model, and many of the (non-canon) 
>  novels that described a docking at a starbase used the same model.  
>  On the other hand, if all of your starships were designed around 
>  airframe hulls (visualize the Space Shuttle with J-drives) the 
>  airport model makes more sense, as it would allow for landings 
>  that were "environment friendly" and cheap (minimal to zero fuel 
>  expenditures.
> 
>  For the record, though, the planet in question is habitable 
>  without artificial environments.

The world was Aramis/Aramis 0710/Spinward Marches, if memory serves,
at the beginning of The Traveller Adventure.  The starport was drawn
as having airlocks leading to the surface above individual landing
pads, and the pads were allocated more like docks than like gates in
that a ship would sit there for the week, unload and load cargo and
passengers, and take off directly from there.  The facilities around
the pads were rather minimal, though; since the players' ship was
there for annual maintenance, it was moved over to the Naasirka
maintenance pads for the two weeks maintenance took, then moved back
to its original location.  The pads were also spaced close together,
at least in their ground footprint, and the city of Aramis was not
lacking for surface area.

About gliding landings being cheaper: The DC-X/Delta Clipper project
is intent on demonstrating that the extra fuel required to land an
empty hull on its tail is less heavy and less expensive than the
equivalent heat shielding and wings required to provide a gliding
landing.  Presumably there will be advances in materials technology
that will make the wings relatively lighter, but the fusion or HEPLAR
rockets assumed by Traveller should keep the extra fuel costs
to land a ship without wings minimal compared with the weight and
expense of wings.  

Environmental friendliness is also debatable, since if your ship
decelerates to a relatively slow speed before entering the atmosphere
using its rockets, there will be less kinetic energy dissipated into
the upper atmosphere, and you won't have people half a world away
complaining about sonic booms from spacecraft.

> T::>Depending on the local tech level, you will have either run ways, or
>  ::>lifters or both.  Some SciFi (which I use) have large magnetic/tractor
>  ::>beams that reach up into space and pull the starship down, and lift it
>  ::>back into space.  So you can get by with not having run ways.  Also it
>  ::>has been implied that some starships (and ships boats) can hover, also
>  ::>eliminating the need for long runways.
> 
>  Which, if you assume that this capability is widespread, implies 
>  that the seaport model is more space efficient, as with such 
>  technologies (remember thruster plates?) there's no reaction wash 
>  area to worry about.  This leads into my original question 2, 
>  below.
> 
> T::>  2) Should I assume that _all_ starships, shuttles, etc., that use
>  ::>  the starport are VTOL-capable?  If not, then I obviously have to
>  ::>  follow the airport model.  If so, the question is still open.

Classic Traveller assumed that all streamlined ships were VTOL.  The
fact that 1G was not enough to lift off from a size A world was waved
off, assuming you could overdrive the rockets/engines/thruster
plates/whatever for a couple minutes.  There are several
adventures assuming that standard small craft, and streamlined ships
such as the scout/courier and the free trader, can land on a dime and
investigate something like an alien complex or rescue the half of the
party that managed to get themselves into a fix, or whatever.
See several chapters from The Traveller Adventure, the adventure from
The Traveller Book (originally in one of the Double Adventure books),
and many other sources.

If you're not using the stock Classic Traveller setting, or you're
trying to rationalize the new non-reactionless drives from FFS, then
you may have to follow your airportish model.

> T::>  3) For ships that use Newtonain reaction mass for takeoffs and
>  ::>  landings, how much of a clear area around the vessel itself
>  ::>  should I allow?

>  In other words, how big is the shuttle, and how big is the blast 
>  area around it?  And does the size of the blast area go up as the 
>  size of the ship does, and at what rate/ratio?

The nearest spectators for a shuttle launch are 3 miles away.  At that
distance, the effects are evidently still quite noticable, with a
shock wave and loud subsonics, but the spectators' hearing is not in
danger or anything.  The shuttle puts out about 5 million pounds of force,
let's say 2,500 tons of force, to lift off; this is comparable to a
classical free trader of displacement 200 tons of hydrogen == 1,400
tons of water.  So if we launch using chemical propellants we'd probably
want to have two or three launch stands far away from everything else,
and to have ships taxi to and from the launch stands.

For your size of blast area question: like any explosion, the effects
obey the inverse square law; the effects will drop to 1/4 at twice the
range, and it takes 4 times as much energy to produce twice the effect
at the same range.  (Someone may wish to correct me on this -- for
very large ships the radii start punching through the tropopause, and
it may go from inverse square to inverse.)

> T::>  4) How big should I make the "parking" zones for the ships, and
>  ::>  how far apart?
> 
> T::>You should plan to be able to support the largest starship that YOU
>  ::>intend to do.  You could say, that for this world, ships over 1000T
>  ::>have to use the orbital facility.  You can then plan your space needs
>  ::>accordingly.
> 
>  Begs the question, though.  I don't have a good feel for what's 
>  "realistic".  As I remember, the 100dt type S looked comparable in 
>  size to something like a MD-9. Should I look at the plan view of 
>  one and just draw the smallest circle that it fits completely 
>  within?  Or do I need to allow some extra space to the nearest 
>  fixed structure?  Do I depress the actual landing area, or leave 
>  smooth ground?  Do I make some docks/landing areas/whatever's 
>  capable of handling only the smaller ships, or do I make them all 
>  capable of handling the largest ships I expect to have land on a 
>  regular basis?  Do I even allow starships to land at the downport 
>  at all, or do I instead have the planet run a fleet of ship's 
>  boats (with airliner-type usage of the cargo area) between Up and 
>  Down?
> 
>  Incidentally, my previous comment still stands...

I'd recommend having a variety of sizes for the pads -- while most of
the ships using the downport will be relatively small, a 100 ton
scout/courier will still need less room than a 5000 ton bulk cargo
carrier.  If you assume reactionless drives, the pads can be barely
large enough to hold the ships.  If you assume reaction drives, then
you'll need to have some kind of launch/landing stand off in the
distance, and you still need the areas for the ships to be parked for
a week at a time to load and unload cargo and conduct business.

You can decide whether you want all the ships to be cheek-by-jowl with
each other or not; on one hand, if you have to isolate a 5 mile or 10
mile radius around the spaceport because no one wants to live that
close, there's lots of room to space ships around; on the other hand,
you probably want to save on the expenses of extending mass transit to
all of the ship sites, so you might cluster them all around the main
starport entrance.  Both would be entirely logical organizations.

If the starport's that noisy, you could, for example, put it way off
in the boonies, with a 15 minute high-speed-rail trip between it and
the major city it serves.  Or put it approximately where Canberra is
in relation to Sydney and Melbourne, sort of like Dallas/Fort Worth
International; halfway between two cities, neither of which will
acknowledge the other as predominant, and serving both equally.  This
turns the disadvantage of a noisy spaceport into sort of a political
advantage...

> T::>  Once I have these questions answered, I think I can construct the
>  ::>  starport sensibly, and then make a decision on the physical
>  ::>  relationship between the starport proper, the extrality zone, and
>  ::>  the planetary city.  But I'm willing to listen to any comments
>  ::>  that anyone else has on this topic...
> ==========================================================================
> Jeff Zeitlin                                      jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com

Jack Dietz
// jdietz@ucsd.edu

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 18:51:12 -0400
From: Rob_Prior@nynet.nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Non-violent Players
Message-ID: <1342832638.13169683@nynet.nynet.nybe.north-york.on.ca>

Hugh Foster asked where I found non-violent players.  Just happened,
actually.
 One biologist, a physicist, three engineers, an artist, and a computer
technician.  All fairly intellectual types who find problem/puzzle-solving
more fun than rolling dice.  The same thing applies to our RuneQuest games:
we'll spend 3-4 hours chatting with the locals rather than slicing monsters.

Course, we're all Canadians who don't really understand the American
fascination with firearms (at least as portrayed in American media). 
Certainly there is a lot less violence up here (check out Canadian violent
crime and fatality statistics).  This is probably significant...

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 00:39:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jeff Scott Franzmann <umfranzm@CC.UManitoba.CA>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Non-violent Players
Message-ID: <Pine.3.05.9409170045.A27443-b100000@mira.cc.umanitoba.ca>

On Sat, 17 Sep 1994, Rob Prior wrote:

> Hugh Foster asked where I found non-violent players.  Just happened,
actually.
>  One biologist, a physicist, three engineers, an artist, and a computer
> technician.  All fairly intellectual types who find problem/puzzle-solving
> more fun than rolling dice.  The same thing applies to our RuneQuest games:
> we'll spend 3-4 hours chatting with the locals rather than slicing
monsters.

I never seem to have a problem with hack n'slash players. In most of the
campaigns I run (whether it be Traveller:TNE, AD&D, MERP or what have
you), the players always seem FAR more interested in cultures, the locals
and problem solving than with who has the biggest, baddest fusion gun (of
course, one player enjoys painting up the part equipment with rude and
somewhat violent sayings..). On a side note...I feel out of place :).
Everyone here seems to be a science type of some sort. I'm an
Anthropologist with a minor in Religion :). My gaming group consists of a
plumber, a Computer Science major, and two female botanists. Hmmm, could
make for an interesting case study :).

> Course, we're all Canadians who don't really understand the American
> fascination with firearms (at least as portrayed in American media). 
> Certainly there is a lot less violence up here (check out Canadian violent
> crime and fatality statistics).  This is probably significant...

It may well be :). As a Canadian, I have to agree that no one in my group
(myself included) can understand this fixation on firearms that seems so
prelevent in the United States. A small statistic I found rather profound.
Winnipeg and New Orleans. Both cities in the population range of 500,000.
Winnipeg is actually closer to 600,000, which makes the statistic even
more profound. So far this year, there have been 317 murders in New
Orleans. Here in Winnipeg? 16...and Winnipeg has a higher murder rate than
many Canadian cities. Scary...

Sincerely,
Jeff Franzmann





------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 1994 02:23:11 -0700
From: PPUGLIESE@pimacc.pima.edu
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Non-violent Players
Message-ID: <01HH7AIWR8948ZNW8A@pimacc.pima.edu>

From: IN%"traveller@MPGN.COM" 16-SEP-1994 22:51:26.29
To: IN%"traveller@MPGN.COM"  "Multiple recipients of list"
CC: 
Subj: RE: Non-violent Players

On Sat, 17 Sep 1994, Rob Prior wrote:

> Course, we're all Canadians who don't really understand the American
> fascination with firearms (at least as portrayed in American media). 
> Certainly there is a lot less violence up here (check out Canadian violent
> crime and fatality statistics).  This is probably significant...

It may well be :). As a Canadian, I have to agree that no one in my group
(myself included) can understand this fixation on firearms that seems so
prelevent in the United States. A small statistic I found rather profound.
Winnipeg and New Orleans. Both cities in the population range of 500,000.
Winnipeg is actually closer to 600,000, which makes the statistic even
more profound. So far this year, there have been 317 murders in New
Orleans. Here in Winnipeg? 16...and Winnipeg has a higher murder rate than
many Canadian cities. Scary...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Heck, it's not hard to explain at all.

The "fascination" with guns by the media has to do with the fact that
the 'powers-that-be' have decided that the problem is with guns. It's
easier to say; "get rid of the guns" than it is to say; "we gotta'
change peoples's attitudes". All just politics.

The stats are easily explained by looking at the cultural diversity
& cultural friction. For example, in parts of England where cultural
homogeneity exists you have a lot less violence than in parts, like
areas of London, where there's more diversity.

Lastly, in many parts of the USA society is just plain breaking down.
When law & order go out the window violence is bound to arise. Right
here in Tucson, AZ the police don't even answer calls sometimes! 

Phil

p.s. The countries that border any given country can also make a
BIG difference in the violence level.





------------------------------

Date: Sat, 17 Sep 94 08:25:11 -0800
From: Edward_Swatschek@mindlink.bc.ca (Edward Swatschek)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: plasma/fusion guns
Message-ID: <m0qm1fJ-0003YJC@rsoft.rsoft.bc.ca>

For those that dislike the energy weapon designs, here's a modification
to try out:

   Since the EPGs have the greatest affect on the mass and usability of
energy weapons, for this table I reduced the volume and mass (by
factors of 2 and 8, respectively) of the EPGs.


Explosive power generators (EPG).

           --------EPG-------
      TL   type  kg/MJ  Cr/MJ
      -----------------------
       9   CXC    1.0    1000
      10   CPC    0.6     100
      12   PPC    0.3      25
      14   PFC    0.2       8
      16   GCFC   0.1       4

All EPGs mass 2.0 kg per litre (laser CLCs should be reduced to 2.5
kg/litre).
For energy bazookas, multiply EPG mass/volume by 1.5, and cost by 1.8.


Box magazine mass (kg) =  (m(n+4)^.667 *0.25
  m = mass of single round in kg
  n = number of rounds in magazine


plasma/fusion gun recoil =  (50(sqrt(e))/m +6) *r
   e = pulse energy of EPG in MJ
   m = loaded mass of firing unit in kg
   r = recoil modifier



I haven't tested it with many designs, but here are a few examples:

--------------------

TL-12  4.8 cm Plasma Rifle (powered troops)

Bulk: 5
Pulse energy: 1.7 MJ
Weapon mass: 6.8 kg empty, 13.76 kg with full magazine
Backpack mass: 13.6 kg
Weapon price: kCr51 (kCr17 firing unit, kCr34 backpack)
Cartridge specs: 4.8 x 14.3 cm Pulse Plasma Cartridge
                 1.7 MJ, 0.51 kg, Cr42.5
Mag specs: 0.93 kg empty, 6.03 kg with 10 rounds, Cr10 empty, Cr435
loaded

ROF: SA1
Dmg value: 15
Pen rating: 1-2-10
Pen value: 15-15-8-2
Recoil: 11
Range: 50 m

--------------------

TL-15  5.5 cm Fusion Rifle (powered troops)

Bulk: 5
Pulse energy: 4.0 MJ
Weapon mass: 8.0 kg empty, 15.53 kg with full magazine
Backpack mass: 8.0 kg
Weapon price: kCr120 (kCr60 firing unit, kCr60 backpack)
Cartridge specs: 5.5 x 16.6 cm Pulse Fusion Cartridge
                 4.0 MJ, 0.8 kg, Cr32
Mag specs: 1.13 kg empty, 7.53 kg with 8 rounds, Cr12 empty, Cr268
loaded

ROF: SA1
Dmg value: 23
Pen rating: 1/2-1-4
Pen value: 46-46-23-6
Recoil: 12
Range: 200 m

--------------------

TL-15  26 cm Fusion Cradle Gun

Pulse energy: 400 MJ
Weapon mass: 12.11 tonnes
Weapon price: MCr28.644
Cartridge specs: 25.7 x 77.2 cm Pulse Fusion Cartridge
                 400 MJ, 80 kg, Cr3200
Fire control: TL10 EMS-RF, TL14 ballistic computer (5 diffs)

ROF: 1/4
Range: 3 km (limited by fire control - calculated range is 20 km)
Dmg value: 230
Pen value: 460-460-460-230
Conc: 53
Burst: 25

--------------------


--
               Edjs                    _
              ------                _ //  CIS  : 76427,662
   Edward_Swatschek@mindlink.bc.ca  \X/   GEnie: E.SWATSCHEK


------------------------------

Date: Sat, 17 Sep 94 16:26:00 UTC
From: k.combs@genie.geis.com
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: TNE Space Combat
Message-ID: <199409171633.AA195329626@relay2.geis.com>

 
 
I have a question regarding space combat in TNE.  Originally, there were
10 fire rounds per turn (30 minutes) for space combat in TNE.  This was
later amended to one fire round per turn (per the Upgrade Booklet found in
FF&S).  This now matches the combat sequence in Brilliant Lances.
My question asks is this correct?  Under the one shot per 30 minute rule,
things seem very skewed in that combat now heavily favors missiles versus
lasers.  Before, lasers seemed favored since a ship could only launch one
missile per tube per turn (30 minutes) versus a laser firing 10 times in one
turn.  The other problem was the length of combat.  In one game of BL, a
Gazelle escort and a Vargr 400 Ton ship fought a 15 turn battle with no
clear winner.  Seven and a half hours of fighting with no clear winner
sounds a little inconsistent.  Initially, I thought the problem was with the
wording of the BL rules ( I assumed the TNE rules of 10 fire segments per
turn were correct).  Now I don't know.
 
I admit that I have only played Brilliant Lances about four times, but things
just don't wash out to what I expect.  Possibly, I am reading the rules
incorrectly.
 
For example, say a Far Trader is ambushed by another Far Trader.  The
battle might take hours which I assume would mean a distress call could be
sent and help may or may not arrive.  This combat time sequence seems to
put a damper on piracy or other space related combat situations.
Any thoughts?
 
Kevin Combs
K.Combs@genie.geis.com
 

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 16:18:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: 556N@delphi.com
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: My Comrades        Dear Comrades In Crime...
Message-ID: <01HH840QVIGI8X3X1T@delphi.com>

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

"You haven't lived until you've herded 350 igli [50 kg goat-like
 herbivores with twin spiral horns] on a low-grav [.45 G] world
 [specifically Eos (0632/Old Expanses)] with a thin, tainted
 atmosphere [.5 atm, sulphur compounds] from a holding pen inside
 a habitat dome through a thin, transparent plastic cargo tube into
 the terribly small, cramped cargo hold [both deck 1 and 2] of a
 tramp far trader just because you're supposed to be posing as the
 'cargo/animal handlers' prior to insertion for a moonshadow
 mission on a world that is home to a functional deep-site meson
 cannon [specifically Keipes (0132/Old Expanses)]..."

  -Raymond "OhNo" Caldwell,
   from The Diary of An RCES Team Leader

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Many 'hard science' players or 'slashnburn' players may find it
inconceivable that the previous abstract refers to about 2.5 to 3
real-time hours of play...  I thought I'd give GDW's story line
concept a real try, and I was impressed.  My players were observed
to have a "rollickin' good time" [a subjective, qualitative, and
possibly normative statement], and not even a single NPC got
toasted in about six real-time hours.  Of course, taking out that
deep-site meson cannon will not be a job for pansy civilians...
So it's a good thing that's not the PCs job!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cynthia, Cynthia!

I love your attitude, especially when you're right!  The whole
'copywrong' issue with T$R, et al. is a public relations fiasco!
I know more people, INCLUDING hobby shop owners whom I will only
identify as by tradename:  Nan's Comics and Games, Gamemasters
Unlimited, Phoenix Comics and Games, and Third Planet: the Sci-Fi
and Fantasy Superstore (all in Houston, Texas) who believe that
T$R is exhibiting the socio-political skill and vision of Rwanda!

The bullying is very true, and I hope that upon graduation that
I may do my million dollars a year worth of bullying!  Legalities
are no excuse for me to stop writing apps for Paradox for Windows,
however, for any game system, or incidentally to stop buying SEMI-
AUTOMATIC WEAPONS (note: semi-autos are NOT assault weapons).

!!! I WILL CONTINUE MY FIVE YEAR MISSION TO BOYCOTT T$R !!!

Mr. Wiseman has informed us that GDW does not have the resources
to employ sufficient counsel to utilize T$R's gestapo tactics,
(emphatic sigh) and more importantly they do not have the resources
to hire me to do in depth demographics research of its various
audiences.  So, I suppose that GDW is not "me-tooing" T$R's policy,
as you called it.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WARNING - IMFLAMMATORY STATEMENT FOLLOWS:

Life paths are for weenies with zero creativity!

DISCLAIMER:  Please note that the forgoing is merely an opinion, and
as such deserves a great deal of support and nurturing (according to
our current elementary school teachers), and should not be decried
as false, wrong, or illogical as that may cause a great deal of
emotional trauma for those that hold the above opinion.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I like dollar signs, I don't know about you... (says the caffeine.)

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Anyway, I agree with a previous 'post'er (giggle) who expounded
on his great respect for GDW.  I agree resoundingly!  With the
possible exception of White Wolf (keep your eyes on 'em), GDW is
the only company I see with truly innovative, interesting, and
consistent games.  Hey, Loren, a Merc: 2000 sourcebook to compete
with Chameleon Ecclectics' _Millenium's End_?  Please?

####################################################################

hey, TED7:

Here's a review of TRAVELLER NAVIGATOR.  Basically, DON'T BUY IT!
Unless you need another HELP FILE for Windows(tm).

All it contains is a large map of Diaspora, subsector maps of
Diaspora, and information on each world pre- and post-collapse.
The 'nifty' notetaking feature they're talking about is very
limited in utility, and the starship tables are only good if you
have the thing next to you during play!  I'm not sure if these
came from TNE or Brilliant Lances.

There is absolutely nothing NEW in it.  All the starships are just
duplicates of what you've already got.

I bought it (somebody please hit me, as I've already asked before)
so I feel obligated to use it once in a while for subsector maps
and world data...

Wanna' buy it?  Ten page manual (including free inconsistencies)
and all!!!

I may never really need it, since my _Idol Dreams_(c) campaign
perished with all hands aboard, and my players may become permanent
residents of Keipes (0132/Old Expanses).

####################################################################

Since others have expressed an interest in a method for describing
their characters' personalities, and deplored that much maligned
'playing card' system...  I took it upon myself to negotiate for a
license to publish a Challenge article using a "real world"
personality inventory that my employers use to help their employees
communicate better with different personality types by identifying
their own characteristics and learning how to (for lack of a better,
business-like, professional term) 'schmooze' the communicatee.  [No,
I'm not in sales, unless you think of politics in a strictly
economic sense.]

The survey is simple.  It takes about ten minutes to complete, and
is totally subjective, and self-descriptive (as most inventories
are).  It is not massive like the MMPI/2 or 16PF, and does not
require a professional psychologist/psychiatrist to interpret.

It is based on the premise that their are FOUR basic personality
types (the refer I think to some looney ancient Chinese philosopher)
and that EVERYONE has characteristics of each type, but normally
only exhibits ONE dominantly.

For copyright purposes I will call it the RCES A4 Personality Scale.
(And if I don't get permission to use the tradename, I'll probably
write the Challenge article anyway, under this name.)  The four
scales are (the names are changed to confuse the ignorant):

1)  Aggressive
2)  Artistic
3)  Amiable
4)  Analytical

Hence the A4 designation.  I have simplified the continuum to a 1 to
20 integer scale (for those morons who insist on truly random
character generation) with 1 at the bottom signifying the least
significant (to the survey subject's behavior) and with 20 as the
highest possible expression of a given characteristic.

The characters' scales with vary day to day, as does every human's
personality, but the recorded numbers should be considered to baseline
by which to judge a character's potential response to stimuli (and
also how well they're staying in character...).  It is possible to
have one or more characteristics which are of equal significance,
resulting in a composite personality type, such as:  Analytical-
Artistic, a good personality type for a journalist...

Agressive is self-explanatory, as is Analytical, I hope.  Artistic
is a measure of the need for, or prevalence of, self-expression,
as evidenced in a number of ways (performing arts, tantrums, etc.),
and are NOT always 'artistic' per se.  Amiable is an index of how
important social interaction is to a given character, i.e. a
character with a 20 Amiable scale would be a team player to beat 
all team players, and a character with a 1 Amiable scale would be
a team player the likes of Simon Peter the night the cock crowed...

Some composite personalities have interesting ramifications, and
will figure significantly in my article, as will the effects of
first, second, and third level stress on each primary personality
type.  I will use myself for example:  I tested a 19 Aggressive (a
number off the top of the original scale, but the real result!), and
negative (on the original scale) on the rest of the characteristics.
Normally, (I'm told) I am an overbearing, dominant, agressive
control freak, and under FIRST LEVEL STRESS I become more so.  That
is under the influence of minor stressors, I become more dominant,
more aggressive.  Under SECOND LEVEL STRESS I zig down the chart to
Artistic and become tremendously more expressive of my displeasure
over whatever stressors are present, or absent!  Under THIRD LEVEL
STRESS, which doesn't happen very often, I zag over to Analytical
and actually stop to think about what is happening (I'm told that
this is unusual for me...)  The only time I've been under FOURTH
LEVEL STRESS I was unconscious (hit by a fast moving Buick Regal
while on a ten-speed), but I am told I would have actually become
very Amiable, which I find hard to believe, under the circumstances,
as I was very p*ss*d *ff when I came to!!!  But then again, I'm not
a psycho, or psychologist/psychiatrist, so I'll take their word for
it.

These scales should not be confused with MOTIVATIONS which are
entirely different animals!!!  These are PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS
which influence reaction to stimuli, such as stress and salespeople!
MOTIVATIONS are the topic covered well by the 'playing card' system
in GDW games that I really like!

Maybe someday I'll actually stop being a starving college student
and earn money doing the things I waste all this time on...  : {

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

NEXT ON OPHRAH:  ON-LINE ADDICTS, Is it the electicity?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


snailmail David Reed
  P.O. Box 1791
  Alief, TX 77411-1791

email  556N@delphi.com
  DER04123@jetson.uh.edu

------------------------------

End of TRAVELLER Digest 43
**************************
